Archives for : gay-marriage

Mozilla: Not as Open and Free as we First Thought


The recent resignation of Mozilla CEO over recent “controversy” shows that gay marriage activists are indeed themselves the intolerant.

The story so far. About four years ago, Brendan Eich, the then CTO of Mozilla, made a donation to a pro-marriage organisaton. This was a private donation coming from his own funds. Recently, Eich was appointed as CEO of Mozilla, and someone obviously decided they’d do a bit of digging into some old records, and found the aforementioned donation.

Should this be a problem? Absolutely not, just as it shouldn’t be a problem if he made a donation to a pro-gay marriage organisation. Why should a company care where its employees donate their personal funds to (bar illegal and hate group organisations)? It was his money. He can do with it what he likes. Yet still, many Mozilla employees took to social media to express their dismay at Eich’s appointment as CEO. But so what? The CEO of my workplace isn’t going to resign because his personal views conflict with mine. Why should he? What right do I have to try and force him out? In fact, in a standard workplace, it’d be basically impossible to have the personal views of the CEO align with the personal views of all the employees. Why does one group get special treatment?

It basically comes down to the mentality of “I’m right, you’re wrong, and I don’t agree with your view.”

There is some good to come out of this. This will backfire for the gay marriage activist community. They have shown that they aren’t ready for real political dialogue. They have shown that that they themselves are intolerant, bigoted and bullies. They have becomes the hypocrites they claimed to hate.

This has been happening for some time – we’ve always known that there are many people who fight for gay marriage who are intolerant, bigoted and bullies (there are also many who aren’t) – but it’s finally starting to come into the spotlight who they really are. You can judge people more by their actions than their words.

I have in the past donated to Mozilla. In the future I intend to be directing donations to my local pro-family group. I would encourage anyone else who supports preserving marriage for our future generations to do the same.

Why Alex Greenwich is wrong about a referendum

Gay-Marriage Debate PanelI had the privilegeĀ of being one of two people on a debate panel Alex Greenwich and another UWS student Renee last night on the issue of same-sex marriage. Alex is a gay state politician in favour of changing our marriage laws. Whilst I didn’t have much of a time to meet him as he had to leave early, I’m sure he’s a great guy with good intentions. However that in itself isn’t a good reason to change laws. I want to focus on one of his arguments he made during the question and answer time. This is nothing personal, as I’m simply looking at what he said and his arguments rather than judging him as a person (this is something I can’t stress enough.)

In the debate, Alex claimed that a referendum on gay marriage, if passed, wouldn’t do anything because it won’t change the Marriage Act and any change still requires an act of parliament.

The claim that a referendum would do nothing if passed is incorrect. The Marriage Act will be changed indirectly by a constitutional change. This is because our federal government has an obligation to ensure that all laws are constitutional. If the constitution changes and causes a law to be unconstitutional, then there is an obligation on the government to change the law. Alex was right when he said it will have to be changed by parliament, however he was wrong when he said that a constitutional change would do nothing, as the constitutional change would cause this change by parliament.

He also mentioned that scare campaigns would cause an increase in gay youth suicide. This may or may not be the case (he really provide any proof and I’m personally not convinced that’s what would happen,) but if it is then we should be providing as much support and funding as needed to reduce this through other means. It’s an issue outside of politics. It’s still a very important issue; suicide is a terrible and ugly thing and I want to do what we can to reduce the suicide rate among teens and others. I feel offering support like this would be much more effective than simply not going ahead with proper democratic political discourse. It is also interesting that he used something quite similar to a slippery slope argument, since his initial address indicated that slippery slope arguments don’t really have any ground (with the expectation of the pro-marriage side to be using slippery slope arguments.)

I’m in favour of a referendum, as are most people in Australia who support traditional marriage. Its interesting that everyone who is pro-marriage is in favour of a referendum and everyone who is for same-sex marriage is against a referendum. Alex claimed it would pass however opposes having a referendum. Actions speak louder than words. Both sides claim they would win a referendum, but I expect the side who actually wants to hold the referendum is the side that really believes their claim.

Clouded by Controversy: Same Sex Marriage

The UWS Golden Key International Honour Society presents Clouded by Controversy: Same Sex Marriage. Date Thursday 3 October 2013 at 6pm. Value: EB G.33, Parramatta Campus, University of Western Sydney.

This Thursday, the UWS Golden Key Society are running a debate about Same-Sex Marriage. It will include two guest speakers from each side each doing 20 minute presentations. In addition to each guest speaker, there will be a student speaker from each side as well each doing 10 minute presentations.

I will be the student speaker arguing against any changes to our marriage laws.

If you live in Sydney and have that evening free, I’d definitely like you to come along (whether or not you agree with my view.)

More details available on the Golden Key UWS website.